- User Since
- Dec 30 2016, 3:24 PM (102 w, 4 d)
LG, but not sure if the comment should mention -static. I think bfd's comment is better
Mon, Dec 17
Add comment about FreeBSD .note.tag
Forget to upload test file...
Sat, Dec 15
Fri, Dec 14
However, it's still useful to define them as hidden in many contexts.
It looks I missed the unittest, sorry for that. And I somehow messed ToProcess[Tail++] = Q;. The test can be simply repaired. What should I do if I don't agree that an additional abstraction layer should be added?
Never mind. Someone asked me for reviews of the llvm-exegesis patch series. I said it wasn't necessarily to be done that way and thus created this one. Later that patch series got accepted and merged and they even mentioned . Yes, I don't understand why that patch series changed the same place back and forth.
Thu, Dec 13
This was undefined behavior before C++17 and indeterminate since C++17...
Wed, Dec 12
It is a cleanup..
Tue, Dec 11
Reminder for committing :)
Mon, Dec 10
Use specific type
Sat, Dec 8
Fri, Dec 7
Thu, Dec 6
Wed, Dec 5
Tue, Dec 4
The one-entry cache I mentioned is like the following (I don't say I suggest doing that as it is so complicated with probably so little value):
I didn't notice this patch when I sent out D55248 (I just observed a locally-invented upper_bound without a good justification :) ).